
JlMl 



(ilass 

Book . V^ It 



SPEECH 



M. THOS. ROSS, OF PENNSYIVANIA, 



THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. 



DSLivcasv 



IN THE BOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 10, 18S0. 



WASHINGTON: 

?amTKD A,T THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OPFICK, 

1850. 



s tjC^Clf AJ 



ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA 



1:1 Committee of tlie Whole on the state of the 
Union, on the President's Message communica- 
ting the Constitution of California. 

Mr. ROSS said- 
Mr. Chairmax: It was my intention to take no 
{•.art in this discussion; but as I do not concur with 
eny one of my colleagues who have addressed the 
committee, in the views which they have expressed, 
I deem it proper also to offer some remarks upon 
the subject now under consideration. Beside, I 
feel that it is a duty which I owe my constituents, 
to explain to them the position that I occupy on 
this exciting and most momentous question. I do 
r.ot intend, sir, to submit any elaborate argument 
on the constitutional point, which has already 
been the subject of so much discussion; but, as I 
have no wish to conceal from my constituents any 
opinion I entertain, it is but just to them to say, 
that I have given that question an anxious and 
deliberate consideration, and that, in my opinion. 
Congress has no constitutional power either to 
establish or to prohii)it slavery in the States or ter- 
ritories. And I will further say, that even if Con- 
gress had the constitutional power, it would be un- 
wise, inexpedient, and highly improper to exercise 
that power. 

In justice to myself I will, in a few words, give 
ny reasons for this opniion. Each State was an 
independent sovereignty w.hen she entered the Con- 
federacy, so far, at least, as regarded the objects 
cf property, and the domestic and social irstitu- 
tions of her people; and she surrendered no part 
of that sovereignty by becoming a member of the 
Union. TheGenera! (Government was established 
for certain specified olyects, and its powers are 
limited by the constitutional grant which created 
it; but to the States themselves belong all powers 
not expressly delegated, or which, by necessary! 
implication, do not arise from some express grant, | 
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, 
negro slavery, I believe, existed in all the States 
but one, which then formed the Union; and no 
power was given to the General Government to con- 
trol, regulate, prohibit, or establish slavery. That 
power, not being granted, v.-as vested in the States 
themselves. The Constitution, however, recog- 
nised slavery as one of the institutions of the 
country, and made provision for the protection of 
slave property. There was no grant, therefore, of 
power of any kind on the subject of slavery made 
by the States to the General Government; but there 
was a binding obligation entered into by the free 



States, or by such as might becoriie free, that the 
GeneralGovernment should protect slave property. 
It seems to me, therefore, that as the States dele- 
gated to the General Government no power of any 
kind over the question of slavery, Congress, which 
derives all its powers from the Constitution, pos- 
sesses no authority either to establish or prohibit 
slavery in the States or territories. In regard to 
! the territories, Mr. Chairman, the General Govern- 
I ment is but the trustee of the States; and it has no 
I power to make any rule or regulation which will 
( throw open the territories to settlement by the peo- 
j pie of one section of the Union to the exclusion of 
j the people of another section. The beneficiary 
i interest of the territories is in the people of all 
j the States — slave States as well as free; and the 
General Government, as the trustee, is bound 
to execute the trust for the common benefit of all. 
j Any legislation by Congress, prohibiting slavery 
I in the territories, would, therefore, be not only an 
I assumption of power not delegated, but would be 
I a violation of the trust, which the Constitution 
I vested in the General Government. 

But, sir, I further hold that, the General Govern- 
ment has no power to prohibit, by any legislative 
I act, the introduction into the territories of any 
species of property which the Constitution of the 
United States has recognized as property. Prep- 
j erty in slaves is not only recognized by the Con- 
: stitution, but guarantees are given for its protec- 
tion. The power, therefore, which is given to 
j Congress by the third section of the fourth article, 
j to make "all needful rules and regulations respect- 
ing the territory or otlier property belonging to the 
United States," is merely a right to regulate, but 
not a power to abolish that v/hich the Constitu- 
tion has recognized as property. An obligation 
to protect or regulate, gives no power to prohibit 
or to destroy. And thus, while we have the con- 
stitutional power to pass laws for the protection 
and regulation of slave property in the territories, 
we have no power to make any legislative enact- 
ment for its prohibition, whether in the States or 
territories. In a word, sir, the Constitution of 
the United States is the Constitution of the terri- 
tories, and as that Constitution recognizes the right 
of property in slaves, any prohibition by Congre.ss 
of that right would'be in violation of the Consti- 
tution, which is the supreme law of the land. 

But, sir, this system of slavery involves not 
merely a question of property. It is a domestic 
institution, interwoven with the social system of 
one half of^ the States of this Confederacy. I have. 



just expressed the opinion that, viewed as a ques- 
tion of property alone, legislation by Congress in 
regard ton is unconstitutional; but when viewed 
in its true light, as a domestic institution, lying at 
the foundation of the social system of six or seven 
millions of the people of this country, I cannot 
hesitate in pronouncing all lejjislation by Congress 
for its prohil)ition a usurpation of power never 
delegated, and a clear violation of the spirit and 
meaning of the Constitution. Sir, tiie Constitu- 
tion was not formed for the purpose of controlling, 
or interfering with the domestic or social institu- 
tions of the people of any of the States. No such 
power is conferred by the States on the General 
Government in any part of that instrument. This 
Union never would have been formed, if such a 
power had been attempted to be delegated to the 
General Government. No class of people in any 
part of the Union would have been willing to sub- 
ject their domestic institutions to the control of a 
mere sectional majority, which might, in the lapse 
of time, prevail in this House. 1 think, sir, it is 
an undeniable proposition, that whatever social 
system or domestic relation, not forbidden l)y the 
Constitution, the people of this country see proper 
to adopt, the people of the territories may also 
adopt or reject, as may eeem to them the more ex- 
pedient. Pennsylvania, and each one of the fifteen 
free States of this Union, may reorganize their 
social institutions at any time, and introduce this 
system of domestic servitude. There is nothing 
in the Constitution of the United States to prohibit 
it. I know that this will never be done, for no 
free State will inflict so great an evil u[)on her 
people as to introduce negro slavery; but they have 
the constitutional power, if they see proper to ex- 
ercise it. If, then, all the thirty Slates of this 
Confederacy may adopt this system of negro servi- 
tude without any violation of the Constitution, I 
am at a loss to understand in what part of that in- 
strument Congress finds its power of prohibition 
in the territories. The power to make rules and 
regulations respecting the properly of thf^ United 
States in the territories, conftrs no authority to 
prohibit or abolish any social or domestic relation 
ef the people not in violation of the Constitution. 
If it be unconstitutional in Congress to prohibit 
this domestic institution in the Slates, it is equally 
unconstitutional to prohibit it in the irrriiories. 
Congress htis no delegated f)ower in either case, 
under the Constitution; and 1 can see no difference 
in principle between the States and territnrie.s as 
to the power of Congress over the domestic insti- 
tutions of the people. 

i know, sir, that iliere are legislative precedents 
for the exercise of this power by Congress; but 
precedents, not founded on any consiitutioiuil 
authority, can and ought to have no binding force, 
either here or in courts of law. They have al- 
ways been, in every Government, and in every 
age, the [dea of tyrants for usurpation of power, 
and for encroachments on the rights of ihc people. 
It has Ijfcn truly said, that a precedent cm never 
sanctify error, or perpetuate usurpation. In a 
constitutional Government, such as ours, where the 
powers of the General Government are clearly 
defined, no act or repeated acts of Congress, can 
cither enlarge or restrict those powers. There is, 
indeed, no doctrine more fraught with evil, than 
the one which would place the exposition of con- 
Blitutional power in the hands of Congrrss. it la 



a doctrine, sir, which tramples under foot all con- 
stitutional guarantees, and makes the unrestrained 
will of a majority of this House the supreme law 
of the land. The history of the legislation of this 
country filrnishes precedents in abundance, of the 
most dangerous heresies, which could be intro- 
duced into the Government. We have precedents 
for alien and sedition laws, for national banks, for 
internal improvements by the General Govern- 
ment, and for many other heresies, which the ad- 
vocates of a latitudinarian construction endeav- 
ored to ingraft upon our Constitution. Power is 
always stealing from the many to the few; and in 
a Government with limited powers, no better plan 
could be adopted for enlarging those powers, than 
by making legislative precedents the rule for deter- 
mining the extent of constitutional authority. It 
is the duty of us all — but it is emphatically the 
duty of the Democratic party — to repudiate all 
legislative precedents for the exercise of pow'er not 
granted to Congress by the Constitution. 

Entertaining these views, the oath, which I have 
taken to support the Constitution, imposes upon 
me the duty to vote against all attempts tliat may- 
be made to legislate slavery either in or out of our 
territories, or north or south of any degree of 
latitude, which may be proposed. Under no cir- 
cumstances, sir, can I give my vote in favor of the 
Missouri compromise line, which would be virtu- 
ally legislating slavery into all territory south of 
that line. I stand upon the broad constitutional 
platform of noninterference; the only platform 
on which the rights, security, and indepeiidenceof 
the States can be maintained. 

But, iWr. Chairman, I will leave this constitu- 
tional point, and ask the attention of the committee 
to other matters connected with the question under 
consideration. It can no longer, sir, be disguised, 
that this slavery agitation has now assumed a 
fearful a.^pect. The danger, with which we are 
threatened, is not of recent origin; it has been 
gradually and steadily approaching for years past, 
though it has been greatly accelerated by recent poli- 
tical events. The two antagonist elements, which 
were combined in our Constitution, have been war- 
ing against each othereversince its formation. The 
time has now come when the danger must be met 
face to face; and upon tliis body is devolved the 
high and solemn responsibility of meeting it. It 
must not be met by palliatives, by expedients, 
or by any system of political quackery, knovin by 
the name of compromises. No, sir; the day for 
shifts or exp<dieiits of any kind has passed. We 
tried the Mj.^souri contftromise in 1820, and with 
what success let the history of the country from 
that tiine to tlie present answer. Sir, since 1820, 
tlie slavery agitation has progressed with alarming 
strides. The Missouri compromise opened the 
door for its agitation. It certainly did not tend to 
s'lppress it, and it could have ha<l no such effect; 
fur whenever a clear con.^titutional right is sur- 
rendered by a compromise, still further suriender 
will inevital>ly be sooner or later demanded. Such 
has been the effect of the Mi.ssouri compromise, 
and such will be the effect of all eompromi,^.e8 of 
constitutional power. I am opposed, ssir, to all 
compromises of this qiustion. 1 am in favor of 
meeting it on broad constitutional ground.*', with 
the solemn declaration of this Hdusc, (hat Con- 
gress has not the cfiisiitutiona! power to legislate 
in regard to it. If such a resolution could bo 



5 



adopted, it would strike at the root of the evil at j Why, then, was it, that, with a clear Democratic 
once; and it would relieve the country from the \ majority in this House, his election did not lake 
agitation of a question which is already surrounded \ place on the first vote ? And why v/as it, that the 
with so much danger to the peace and stability of ; voting was prolonged for twenty days before we 
•he Union. No one can be insensible of this || succeeded in the election? Simply because our 
innger. For my own part, I believe that the peril jj candidate came from a southern State; and north- 
i3 more imminent than it has been at any former \\ ern Democrats, who boasted of their Democracy, 
period of our history. Dissolution may not occur j: refused to support him— for that reason, and that 
this year, or the next; but it docs not require the |l alone. This fact is significant enough of the prog- 



gift of prophecy to foretell that it will come sooner 
or later, if these aggressions upon the domestic 
institutions of the South are persevered in. It is 
a lamentable fact, that the people of the North and 
of the South, unmindful that they are children of' 



ress, which sectional feeling had made in northern 
constituencies, even before the meeting of Congress. 
It was the first time in the history of the Demo- 
cratic party, that a northern Democrat refused to 
support a southern Democrat because one lived 



the same revolutionary parent, begin already to j north, and the other south, of Mason and I 

; and it is an [. on 'a line; and I hope it will be the last. Sir, 



of Mason and DiX' 
look upon each other as enemies; and it is an li on 'a line; and I hope it will be the last. Sir, we 
equally c'eplorable fact, that those holy feelings of j would have wholly failed in the election of a 
love and veneration, which the people of both ij Speaker on Democratic grounds, if the Whigs had 
sections of our common country, but a few years Ij not, in the simplicity of their hearts, rescmded the 
ago, entertained for this blessed Union, are grad- |i rule requiring a majority of the votes to elect, and 
ually dying out, and in a short time will be wholly ; in its stead substituted the plurality rule; and that 
extinguished. Sir, here lies the danger. I know : result would have been produced because northern 
thai the North is full of strength and of vigor, and j| Democrats would'not vote for southern Democrats, 
may compel her weaker brother of the South to ji But was there no sectional feeling manifested by 
'submission. But the first blow that is struck— ii the South, when the election of Clerk of the House 
the first blood that is shed will seal the doom of ij took place? The one, the Democratic candidate, 
that peaccf:;il and glorious Union which our fathers ij resided in the North, and the other, the Whig can- 
bequeathed to us. Sir, this Union is not. an iron- jj didate, resided in the South. Did the southern 
bound Union, which Uie hand of power and of {^ Democrats adhere to the Democratic candidate? 
violence may maintain. No, sir, the tie which jj No, sir, they even did worse than the northern 
unites us is a silken tie— it is the tie of mutual j' Democrats, who refused to vote for a southern 
love and mutual sympathies— of common memo- jJ Democratic Speaker. They not only abandoned 
ries of a glorious past, and of common hopes of a ii the Democratic candidate, but they abandoned the 
still more glorious future. When this tie is broken, ii Democratic party, joined the Whigs, and by their 
the Americ.in Union will exist no longer. The j votes elected the Whig southern Clerk in opposi- 
written bond of the Confederacy may remain, but ;■ tion to the Democratic northern clerk. Colonel 
its vitality will be gone. We will have the crushed i' Forney, our candidate, was the favorite of the De- 
and battered, body, but the soul— everything in- jj mocracy of the North; he had always been the 
deed, which gave life and spirit and value to that ij eloquent champion of Democratic principle.^, and 
body, will have fled forever. '] he had courageously stood by the Constitution in 

Let no one be deceived in regard to this danger, i defence of southern rights against northern aggres- 
We are even now passing through the first process jj sion. But still this sectional feeling overpowered 
of a dissolution of the Union. This House has 'j all other considerations, and he was struck down 
been already told, that the religious union of two !, by the South for the sake of the South, [advert, 
of the most numerous denominations of Christians ii Mr. Chairman, to these elections with no unkind 
has been dissolved by thir; slavery agitation. The j| feelings. My object isto show to what extent 
northern member of thase denominations will no 
longer v/orship his God at t!ie same altar with his 



southern brother; and we have been also told, that 
the same spirit of disunion has entered the sanc- 
tuary of other churches in the North. Sir, not 
only is our religious union being dissolved, but the 
iiolilical union, which, for more than fifty years. 



this sectional feeling, which is but the forerunner 
of disunion, has been carried even here in the le- 
gislative hall of the nation. But, this feeling has 
not merely manifested itsdf in these elections. 
Who, sir, that loves his country, ran forget the 
terrible scene, which was exhibited in this Ohraii- 
ber, on the 13th of December last, in which the 



united the Democrats of the North and of the South j; honorable member from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] 




from his political brotherof the South, in the same i; always will stand by it, come what may; and if a 



manner that sectional fanatici.=;m has estranged the 
Christian of the North from his Christian brother 
of the South. Sir, the proceedings of this Con- 
gress, since the first day on which we assembled, 
prove clearly that an evil spirit is at work, which 
will ullim.ately bring, not only upon our party, but 
our country, ruin and disunion. Why, 1 ask, were 



thunderbolt had fallen at my feet, I could not have 
been more shocked than I was at what I then saw 
and heard. The honorable member did not hesi- 
tate " to avow before this House and the country, 
' and in the presence of the living God, that if by 
' your legislation you seek to drive us from the Ter- 
ritories'of California and New Mexico, purchased 



we four weeks endeavoring to elect a Speaker of ji ' by the common blood and trea..ure of the whole 



ihis House? Our candidate was a Democrat, reg 
iilarly nominated by a Democratic caucus, unob- 
jectionable to any member of the party on politi- 
cal grounds, and as to his personal fitness for the 
office, his political opponents even conceded it. 



' people, and to abolish slavery in this District, 
' thereby attempting to fix a national degradation 
' upon half of the States of this Confederacy, I am 
'for disunion; and if my physical courage be equal 
' to the maintenance of my convictions of right and 



6 



' duty, I will devote ail I am and all I have on earth 
' to its consummation." 

Sir, how was this language received ? With 
cries of treason I treason ! No, sir; no cry of 
treason was uttered, but shouts of applause echoed 
through the Hall. Those plaudits, on that mem- 
orable occasion, came not from the galleries, but 
from honorable, distinguished, and prominent 
members of both the political parties of the country. 
The sentiment uttered was not the sentiment of 
the honorable member alone. The response which 
it received from southern representatives, showed 
that it was the sentiment of the South; and no 
sooner had the sound of his voice reached the 
Bouthern States, than it was echoed back with 
legislative approval. I know that the Free-Soil 
men. and the people generally of the North, have 
viewed this as the language of a zealous and im- 
passioned man; but in this they are mistaken. If 
the proviso become a law, they will find that the 
sentiment uttered by the gentleman from Georgia 
will be the all-pervading sentiment of the South. 
It has been repeated again and again on this floor, 
by other southern representatives; and to this 
hour, no member from any section of the South, 
whether Whig or Democrat, with one solitary 
exception, [Mr. Stanly,] has disavowed that sen- 
timent. Grave Senators and representatives, who 
have always been distinguished for their prudence 
and moderation, and for their sincere attachment 
to the Union, have also solemnly warned us, that if 
the proviso become a law, the Union will be at an 
end. Sir, is it not time for the people of the North 
to take heed of these warnings? Is it not time 
that they, too, begin to calculate the value of the 
Union — not in that pecuniary spirit, which esti- 
mates its value in dollars and cents, but in that 
spirit of patriotism, which, looking far beyond its 
commercial value, estimates it by the many and 
great blessings it has already conferred upon man- 
kind, and by the countless blessings it is still des- 
tined to confer upon generations yet unborn. Is it 
not time for them to pause and inquire, how long 
they can teach from their pulpits, and their school- 
houses, that the institutions of the people of one 
half of this Confederacy are sinful and wicked, 
and at the same time the union of these States con- 
tinue. 

But, sir, for what object is the Union thus placed 
in jeopardy .' Is it for the purpose of still furtiier 
enlarging the liberty of the citizen and obtaining 
new guarantees for his rigiits? Is it for the pur- 
pose of effecting, by constitutional means, some 
great constitutional reform ? Is it for the purpose 
of effecting any object demanded by any great 
public exigency whatever ? No, sir; but it is for 
the miserable object of doing that by human laws 
which nature, and a higher Power than any earthly 
tribunal, has already done. So far as regards the 
Territories of New Mexico and Utah, nature her- 
self has interposed barriers against the introduc- 
tion of slavery, far more formiduble and prohibi- 
tory, than any legislative enactment by Congress 
could possibly be. The whole of the country 
embraced in these territories is a high mountain re- 
gion, with no adaptation in soil, climate, or pro- 
duction for slave labor. The adoption of the Wil- 
mot proviso for these territories would have about 
as much practical effect in preventing the extension 
of slavery therein, as it had in the Oregon Terri- 
tory, or as it would have in Canada, whenever the 



people of that northern clime ask to be annexed 
to the United States. It was stated, in a speech 
delivered a few days ago by a distinguished Sen- 
ator, [Mr. Dorr.i.As,] on the authority of Fre- 
mont's explorations, that the lowest point in the 
lowest valley of the Great Basin, as marked on 
the map of those explorations, is more than four 
thousand feet above the ocean, and that the aver- 
age elevation of the valleys is at least five thou- 
sand feet. Why, sir, what better anti-slavery 
proviso can the most ultra free soiler desire, than 
the one which nature herself has enacted? " When 
' you ascend toward the heavens, twice as high a3 
' the Alleghany mountains, in order to get into 
' valleys surrounded by mountain ranges many 
' thousand feet higher, and covered with eternal 
' snows, do you not think (asks the distinguished 
' Senator) that you have found a charming coun- 
' try and a lovely climate for the negro, and es- 
' pecially for the profitable employment of slave 
' labor?" Sir, it is time that the honest-minded 
portion of the community, who are sincerely op- 
posed to the extension of slavery, should look at 
this question in its true aspect. If they do. 1 feel 
certain, that they will no longer sufl!'er themselves 
to be used for the purpose of promoting the selfish 
and political objects of a few designing and ambi- 
tious men. Fanaticism itself, it seems to me, must 
be convinced that slavery could not even be driven^ 
by lejislation, into the Teiritories of New Mexico 
and Utah. 

Sir, I do not believe that slavery would, under 
any circumstances, have been introduced into any 
of the territories acquired from Mexico. The 
valleys of the Sacramento and San Joaquin, in Cali- 
fornia, were the only places to which, by a mere 
possibility, it might have been extended. But the 
Giver of all good, in whose hands are the desti- 
nies of nations, has, in his infinite wisdom, so 
controlled human events that every part of Cali- 
fornia is now, and will forever remain, fr?e soil. 
The discovery of the gold, and the consequent 
rush of emigration from the free States, has for- 
ever closed her doors against the admission or* 
slavery. Yes, sir, California is already free by 
the unanimous consent of her own people, and 
that, too, without the aid or interference of the 
Free-Soil party of the country. Her soil will be 
free soil whether she be admitted as a State or be 
remanded to a territorial condition. No legisla- 
tive action by Congress can change her destiny. 
Fiee she has become by her own act, and free she 
will remain; and I rejoice that she owes not her 
freedom to the Free-Soil party in this House. I 
know that southern gentlemen deny that the con- 
stitution of California was the voluntary act of her 
people, and that they allege it was the act of the 
administration of President Taylor. Sir, I con- 
cede that there was a highly improper and un- 
warrantable interference by the Administration i.i 
regard to California; and that, perhaps, without 
that interference, this State government would not 
have been formed. But it i's nevertheless the vol- 
untary act of her people, although the suggestion 
to do that act first came from the Administration. 
If it be not the voluntary act of the people, why 
is it that no remonstrance has been sent up to this 
House ? Why is it that no complaint of any kind 
has been made by any one? Because there is no 
dissatisfaction among her citizens in regard to that 
act. But I have other objections to the adniission 



of California as a State. It occurs to me, that if 
it were not for the influence, which this slavery 
question exercises over the minds of us all, not 
twenty gentlemen could be found in this House 
who would vote for her admission. The territory 
embraced by the proposed State of California 
contains nearly four times the number of square 
miles, which either New York or Pennsylvania 
possesses. Pennsylvania has a territory embra- 
cing nearly forty-seven thousand square miles, 
and New York has about the same number. But 
California is seelcing admission with a territory 
which may be estimated to contain about one 
hundred and seventy thousand square miles; and 
she has a sea coast of nine hundred miles, or 
thereabouts. In addition to all this, she in- 
cludes within her limits every harbor which we 
have on the Pacific. Why, sir, admit her with 
iier present extended boundaries, and she will be 
an empire ! No one, who looks forward to the 
future, when a dense population will fill her bor- 
ders, can doubt v/hat will be her destiny. With 
her varied and rich mineral productions, her 
splendid and unrivalled commercial position, with 
the trade of the eastern and western world falling 
into her lap, her population will increase with an 
acceleration unprecedented even in this country. 
That destiny will then be separation from the 
Union, and the formation, out of our territories 
west of the Rocky Mountains, of a separate west- 
ern confederac)'. I am aware that it has been 
said, that a great part of her soil is barren, and 
will be unproductive, and that therefore she will 
be incapable of sustaining a large population. 
But whatever may be the fact in regard to her 
soil, it is manifest that, with her immense valuable 
mineral productions, she will sustain a population 
much larger than a merely agricultural territory 
could possibly do. Sir, we all know the pre- 
ponderating influence of large States. In 1844, 
the Whig party felt sensibly the weight of the 
empire State of New York, whose thirty-six elec- 
toral votes crushed their hopes and destroyed their 
candidate. And in 1848, the Democratic party, 
with a candidate distinguished for his patriotism 
and sound American feeling, for his abilities and 
long-tried services in the councils of the nation, 
and for his pure and constitutional Democracy — I 
say, that with such a standard-bearer the Demo- 
cratic party was for the time struck down by the 
twenty-six electoral votes of Pennsylvania, which 
she cast for the no-party President. The three 
States of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, 
poll nearly two-thirds of the electoral votes neces- 
sary to elect a President; and if we add Virginia, 
we find four States of the Union wanting but two 
of three-fourths of the vote requisite to elect a 
candidate. Does not this simple statement strong- 
ly exhibit the dangerous power which belongs to 
large States ? We have thirty States in the Union, 
and of these four alone can, from their extent of 
territory, poll three-fourths of the vote necessary 
to a choice. By a combination with each other, 
their power, in every Presidential election, would 
be irresistible. The preponderating influence of 
large States is felt not only in our Presidential 
elections, but in the councils of the nation, and in 
everything, that appertains to the Government of 
the country. Sir, I think it is unwise to extend 
this power by admitting California with a terri- 
tory nearly four times as large as any one of the 



four States I have named. The smaller vre make 
the States on the Pacific, the greater will be our 
security against secession. If I were influenced 
by the slavery question, in my objection to the 
admission of California, I would take the ground 
that by dividing her territory we would have two 
free States instead of one, and four Senators in 
Congress instead of two, and thus strengthen the 
power of the free States in the legislative depart- 
ment of the Government. 

But there are other objections to the admission 
of California, beside the extent of her territory. 
Has she served the probationary period, which 
has heretofore been required of all our territories.' 
Has her population in one year become sufiiciently 
indoctrinated in republican principles to entitle 
them to the inestimable rights, privileges, and im- 
munities enjoyed by a State government? I am 
afraid not, sir. A large portion of her population 
consist of foreigners, who have never had a repub- 
lican training. It is well known, that on the dis- 
covery of the gold, persons from every part of the 
world flocked to California, and that the Pacific 
coast and islands sent forth their thousands. To 
say, sir, that such apopulation, composed of every 
hue, and brought together from every clime, were 
fit persons, in whom to vest that high attribute of 
freemen, the elective franchise, is what I cannot 
understand, and do not believe. The high privilege 
of becoming one of the sovereignties of this great 
Confederacy has never been so lightly granted. 
Michigan was erected into a territory, January 11, 
1805; but she was not admitted as a State until 
January 26, 1837 — more than thirty-two years after 
her territorial government had been established, 
notwithstanding she had three times memorialized 
Congress for admission; and, sir, when she was 
finally admitted, she was allowed but one repre- 
sentative in Congress. And how was it in re- 
spect to Florida ? A territorial government was 
established in March, 1822, but she was not ad- 
mitted as a State until March, 1845, twenty-three 
years after she had been created a territory, al- 
though she had knocked four times at your doors 
for admission. Even then, she was allowed but 
one representative in Congress. I might run 
through the list of all our territories, and show, 
that in every instance, they served a probationary 
term before they were admitted as States; but my 
time will not permit me to do so. Why, sir, should 
this salutary rule be broken down in favor of Cali- 
fornia.' In my opinion, a rigid enforcement of it 
is more necessary, in regard to California, than it 
was in other cases. 

But, Mr. Chairman, what was the population 
of California when this constitution was formed, 
and what is it now ? When I speak of population, 
I do not mean gold-seekers and other adventurers, 
who have gone there for a temporary object; but 
what is the number of her resident population .' 
No one can tell. But one fact we do know, and 
that is, that the whole number of votes polled was 
only about twelve thousand eight hundred, and 
that, too, without any regard to residence or any 
other qualification of the voter. No single district 
in Pennsylvania, or in any other State, that polls 
only twelve thousand eight hundred votes, is enti- 
tled to even one representative in Congress. My 
own district polls more than sixteen thousand 
votes. But California is to be admitted as a State, 
with two Senators and two Representatives, when 



8 



her entire vote oo!le4 was but twelve thousand 
eioht hundred. Tlie admission of California, under 
ail these circumstances, will not only be a vioietion 
of every rule, by whicli we have been heretofore 
governed, in the titlmission of States, but will be 
an act of (ijieat injustice to the oMier Slates, who 
have for so many years borne all the burdens and 
the perils of the Government in its most trying 
period. It will be a precedent for ihe admission, at 
the next session, of New Mexico, Minnesota, and 
Utah; and will thus break down that principle of 
fair and equal representation, which is the corner- 
stone of our republican system of Government. 
Much, sir, as I arn opposed to her admission, I 
wil' nevertheless be compelled, by the wisiiesof my 
constituents, whose will I dare not disregard, to 
rote for the bill now before the committee, unless 
their opinions should undergo a change before the 
.Inal vote be taken. I have no right, as a repre- 
sentative, to set up my own judgment against the 
opinions of my constituents. 

U lias been my object to show, that California, 
New Mexico, and Utah, are destined to be free 
soil, without any legislative action by Congress. 
Why, then, sir, should the Union be shaken to its 
centre by ilie agitation of this slavery question .' 
Why, air, should these persevering and systematic 
efforts be made to estrange one section of the Union 
from the other, and to alienate those who ought 
to be bound together by fraternal aft'cction ? The 
answer is plain: One class of these agitators desire 
to break down the national Democratic party, by 
the formation of a new party, founded on geo- 
graphical divi.siona, and thus rise to power and to 
plane; and the other class, composed exclusively 
of Abolitionists and fanatics, are determined to 
abolish slavery within the States, at whatever 
aacritice, it may be accomplished. The immortal 
Washington warned us " to distrust the patriot- 
ism of those who, in any quarter, might endeavor 
to weaken the bands of the Union." With him 
the continuance of tite Union, was a primary ob- 
ject of patriotic desire, and he charged us " to 
'cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable at- 
' tachment to it, and indignantly to frown upon the 
'first dawning of every attempt to alitnate any 
' portion of our country from the rest, or to en- 
' lee')le the sacred ties which now link together 
' the various parts." The Father of our country 
foresaw at that early day, the dangers to which the 
Union might be exposed, and he warned us, in the 
most solemn and emphatic manner, to frown upon 
the very first dawning of any attempt to alienate 
one Roction from the other. And how have we 
attended to hia it:j unction .' Scarcely rnorc than 
fifty years have passed away since this solemn 
charge was given to us, and already sectional jeal- 
ousies and geographical discrimination a are bringing 
forth their bitter fruits. Thefiml d.-nvning of aliena- 
tion has long since disappeared, and the lurid glare 
of di.sunion now sheds its sickening and dism-al 
light around us. Sir, if my colleague, [Mr. 
Stevems,] when he addressed the committee, had 
raised his eyes to the j)ortrait of Washington, 
v/hich hung before him, he would tiave seen it 
indignantly frov^ning at his ignoble attempt to 
excite one section of the Union against the other; 
or, if the heart of that member had throbbed with 
«ven one patriotic impulse, he would have shrunk 
back to his seat covered with shame and remorse, 
for hia libel upon the government of his country. 



Sir, I envy not the feelings of any one, who can 

rise in his place, and in a deliberately preptared 
speech, pronounce the Government of his country, 
a despotism. I envy not the man, who can thus 
defame the memories of Washington, and Frank- 
lin, and Madison, and of the other sages and 
patriots of the Revolution, by whom this Constitu- 
lion was fornred. No, sir, I envy no such man; 
and I would leave him alone in hia shame, if a 
sense of dety did not require me to notice some 
other passages of that most extraordinary speech. 
In referring to the course of the South, that mem- 
ber has dared to speak of his Democratic colleagues 
in the following indecent and insulting language: 

" You liave more tlimi once frightened the tame North 
fiom its propriety, and (bund "dniightHces" enongii to be 
your tool:!. And when youlacked a !;iven nunibi-r, I take 
no pride in s;iyine, yon were. sure to find lliem in old Penn- 
sylvania, wtio, in fornjer years, has r.tnked a portion of tier 
delrgation among your most submissive shivf s. Buti hope, 
with some fears, that the race of doughfaces is fxlinct. I 
do not see how it could well be otherwise. Tlify were an 
unmanly, an unvirile race, incapable, according to the laws 
of nature, of reproduction. 1 hope tliey have left no de- 
scendants. % The old oijps are deep in political graves. For 
them, [ arn sure there u no resurrecuon, for they wen 
soulless." 

Dut ho even v/ent still further, and denounced 
every northern nnan, who did not vote for the sla- 
very restriction, " as a traitor to liberty and recreant 
to his God." Sir, I may well ask wh.ether this is 
the representative hall of the nation ? whether 
we are the free Representatives of a free people, 
or the " submissive slaves" which my colleage has 
charged that we are? for surely language so offen- 
sive, and impudence so unblushing, have never be- 
fore been seen or heard, in any respectable assem- 
blage of men. I know, sir, that it should be 
treated with the acorn and contempt which every 
honorable mind must feel for its author. It is an 
old proverb, and as true as it is old, that the bad 
tongue of a bad man can defame no one. Penn- 
sylvania knows that member. With deep liumilia- 
tion she acknowledges the acquaintance. His 
history has been th.e history of her wrongs and 
her misfortunes. But, sir, the memories of the 
past have long since placed an imp.assable gulf 
between him and her. She has affixed a brand 
upon him, as deep and as indelible as the wrongs 
which she suff^ed at his hands were grievous 
and intolerable. Yes, sir, his dayof mischief there 
has passed, and the Democracy of Pennsylvania 
may v.-ell laugh to scorn his viilg>ir, indecent, and 
unmanly abuse, not only of her own Representa- 
tives, but of her southern brethren also. In a 
mind constituted as is that memlier's, no doubt 
some apology may be found for this extraordinary 
speech. If, sir, I had ever been an applicant for a 
high ofSce under the General Government, and 
had been defeated by the South, in consequence of 
my abolition tendencies, perhaps, I, too, might 
speak of the South with equal bitterness. If, sir, I 
were so degraded in feeling as to desire to raise 
the negro to social and political equality with the 
white man, perhaps, 1, too, might denounce the 
slaveholder as recreant to hia God. If, sir, I were 
so insensible of the dignity of my position, and so 
lost to all sense of propriety as to be res;ardles3 of 
what was due to my colleagues, and to this House, 
perhaps I, too, might stigmatise as doughfaces 
every one, who did not think as I thought, and 
vote as I voted. Or if, sir, I had been, on any oc- 
casion, a traitor to liberty, and had, by force of 



9 



arms, endeavored to treat an election, as if it had 
never taken place, perhaps I, too, might denounce 
as traitors every northern Representative who 
stood by the Constitution of his country. But, j 
Bir, therr )' one thing I could not do: I could not 
rise in my jilac'^, and utter these aenliments, just ' 
after I had voted for a slaveholder for President, 
in preference to a candidate who was born, edu- 
cated, and lived on free soil; and in preference to 
another candidate, who was the embodiment of 
the principles which I professed. Nor, sir, could 
I rise in my place and so defame the character of 
good old Democratic Pennsylvania, as to represent 
that she participated in any such sentiments, if 
I did, it would bring a deeper blush into my 
cheek than the address of the gentleman from 
Virginia [iMr. Meade] brought into the cheek of 
the honorable member from Penn.^ylvania; and he, 
sir, has never been very remarkable for blushing. 
No, sir, Pennsylvania entertains no such senti- 
ments or feelings. Her voice is coming up daily to 
this House, in tones of condemnation of the course 
pursued by ray colleague, and the Free-Soil and 
Abolition party of the North. No son of hers, who 
had been born upon her soil, and had breathed in 
early life her pure mountain air, would have given 
utterance to such sentiments. Sir, the Democratic 
party of Pennsylvania has aUvays stood by the 
Union in its hour of peril, as well as in its day of 
prosperity. That party has never recognized any 
geographical discriminations in favor of one section 
of the Union against the other; and I am proud to 
eay, that now, when danger again threatens, that 
party and that State are the first to come forward 
to the rescue. Yes, sir, and I feel still more proud, 
that the stout-hearted Democracy of rny own gal- 
lant Lehigh was foremost to rally in defence of 
the Union, against these incendiary attempts to 
trample upon the Constitution. But, I will pass to 
a subject of more importance than the member 
from Pennsylvania. 

We have heard a great deal said about the ag- 
gressions of the two sections of t'le Union on the 
rights of each other. I propose, sir, to consider 
the question, by which section those aggressions 
have been made — by the North or by the South. 
The history of the country, from the adoption of 
the Constitution, shows that the people of the 
North have been tiic aggressors. 1 knoviT that it 
has been the constant theme of the Federal party 
and of Federal editors, for some j'cars past, to im- 

Eress upon the people of the North, that the South 
as been aggressing upon their rights; and the 
question has been tauntingly put to us, svhelher we 
will longer submit to southern dictation and south- 
ern rule. Sir, this feeling was first deliberately 
inculcated when the Democratic party of the Soutli 
began to warn the country of the errors and the 
evils of a protective tariff. The Federal party had 
always inculcated it, for the plain reason, that the 
South was the strong-hold of the Democracy: and 
it was only by arou.'-ing sectional jealousy and ar- 
raying the North against the South, that the Fed- 
eralists could expect to break down the Democratic 
parly of tlie Union, and thus secure to themselves 
the control of the Government. Divide ard con- 
quer was their principle of action. But the De- 
mocracy of the North fetood firm, and resisted all 
their attempts to separate them fiorn their political 
brethren of the South. It was not until the pro- 
tective system, with all its abominraiona, was about 



to be swept away, that any portion of the Demo- 
cratic party of the North sympathized with the 
Federalists in their sectional hostility. It was ihen, 
before the eyes of the Democrats were fully opened 
to the enormities of this protective system, that 
th.e cry of southern dictation was raised with re- 
doubled energy by the Federalists; and then, for 
the first time, it found favor with a portion of the 
northern Democrats. They joined the Federalists 
in their cry against the South, in order to preserve 
that system of laws, which protected the manufac- 
turing interest at the expense of every other inter- 
est of the country. Sir, from that day to this, the 
Federalists, Abolitionists, and the great body of the 
manufacturers of the North, have rung the changes 
so often upon southern aggresaioii, that unreflect- 
ing men have begun to befieve there was something 
in it. But when has the South ever aggressed upon 
the North? — or when, by any legislative enact- 
ment, has she ever infringed upon their rightg, 
privileges, or social institutions? No such attempt 
by theSou;n hasever been made. 'I'he history of 
our legivslalioi shows, that the South lias always 
voted appropriations for the North with a liberal 
hand. Look at the harbors and sea-coast of the 
North, and you will there see evidences enough to 
attest the liberality of the South, and to prove, that 
she has never entertained any unkind feelings for 
that section of the Union. Millions upon miliiona 
.■<he has voted to build up our Atlantic cities, and 
to increase the wealtii and power of the northern 
States, and still she is charged with aggression! 
Sir, as a northern man, I pronounce the charge 
unjust and ungenerous. Ifgentlemen, who make 
this charge mean, that the South ha.=) given a strict 
construction to the Constitution, and thus re- 
strained the North in their bold attempts so to con- 
strue it, as would have destroyed the sovereignty 
of the Slates, and led to a consolidation of power 
in the General Government, then 1 admit the fact. 
But this was not aggression — it was constitutional 
protection against the unconstitutional assumption 
of the North. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, let us look at the other 
side of the picture. Let us see -.vhether the North — 
I mean the Federal party of the North — has not 
been constantly aggres.si,ig upon the South. In 
1789 the Constitution v/ent into operation. " It 
» was the result (said Genera! Washington, in hia 
!| = letter to the President of the Congress of 1787) 
'of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference 
• and concession, which the peculiarity of our po- 
' litical situation rendered indispensible." By that 
instrument, the free States agreed to form a union 
with the slave Stales. The Constitution expressly 
recognized slavery, and stipulated for the protec- 
tion of slave property. Nay more, it legalized 
the slave trade, and covenanted, that no amend- 
ment of the Constitution that might be made prior 
to 1808 should prohibit the importation of slaves. 
It thus not only legalized slavery and protected 
slave property, but it looked forward to au in- 
creased foreign importation of slaves. Whether 
or not the free Stales, or those that were about to 
become free, acted wisely in entering into such a 
compact, it is not for us, who are sworn to support 
the Constitution as we find it, to determi. e. Itia 
sufficient to know, that it was submitted to the 
people of the different States, and that it received 
their solemn sanction, through their Elepresenta- 
<f ives, in Conventions assembled; and that it is ndw 



10 



binding on us and on the whole country. One 
of the objects of the union, as the preamble to the 
Constitution sets forth, was " to insure domestic 
trav.q.dllity.''^ But no sooner was the Government 
organized, than an attempt was made by the North 
to disturb the domestic tranquillity of' the South. 
At the first Congress, held under the Constitution, 
a petition, signed by citizens of the North, asking 
for ti;c abolition of slavery, was presented. Thus 
we find, that as early as 1790 the North commenced 
its attacks upon the institutions of the South; and 
they have persevered in these assaults, regai-dless 
of al! constitutional stipulations, with unrelenting 
and uncompromising hostility, from that day to the 
present. 1 will not take up the time of the House 
by recapitulating in detail these different acts of 
hostility, but will confine my remarks to a few of 
the most prominent. The great body of the peo- 
ple of the South was Democratic, and this was a 
sin, which was not to be forgiven by the New 
England Federalists. The hostility of the Federal 
jDarty of New England to the South, from the day 
that the Democracy of the country triumphed over 
John Adams and northern Federalism, by the elec- 
tion of Thomas Jefferson, is as notorious, sir, as was 
their opposition to the war of 1812, and the opposi- 
tion cl* their descendants to the just and righteous 
war with Mexico. And what did that party then 
do, during the war of 1812? Why, when that trea- 
sonable assemblage of northern Federalists, known 
as the Hartford Convention, met to devise plans 
of giving aid and comfort to our foreign foe, and 
to break down the Democratic administration of 
Madison, one of their first acts was to agitate the 
slavery question. This question was at that day, 
as it is nov/, the most formidable weapon, which 
the Federalists could use to destroy the great na- 
tional Democratic party; and accordingly one of 
the alleged grievances of that convention was this 
southern institution, and the right of representa- 
tion founded upon it. Yes, sir, at that time, when 
the people of the South stood shoulder to shoulder 
with the Democrats of the North, fighting the 
battle.? of our country in the war of 1812, the 
Fedtralists of New England were banding to- 
gether to destroy the Constitution, and the rights 
guaranteed by it to the southern Stales. Then it 
was, that in the midst of a perilous war with 
Great Britain — a war which required the union of 
the whole country to brins: it to a glorious termi- 
nation — that the eastern Federalists raised the cry 
against the slavery institutions of the South. Did 
the Demociats of the North, or any part of them, 
then join in this cry? No, sir; they understood 
too well the obligations which the Constitution had 
imposed upon them, and the duty which they 
owed their country. They knew too well that 
the agitation of the slavery question was a plot to 
break down tlie national Democracy by separating 
the northern Democrat from his southern brother. 
They stood then, as I hope they always will stand, 
by their principles and by the Constitution. And 
what course did Democratic Pennsylvania take 
with these anti slavery resolutions of the Hartford 
Convention, which the Governors of Coiuiecticut 
and Massachusetts transmitted for her considera- 
tion? Did she then cry out free soil and southern 
aggression, or join the eastern Federalists in their 
crusade against slavery? Far from it. That firm 
Democrat and pure patriot, Simon Snyder, was at 
that lime the Governpr of the State; and it was 



under his administration that a Democratic Legis- 
lature of Pennsylvania, without the dissenting 
voice of a single Democrat, affixed the seal of con- 
demnation to the anti-slavery agitation of that 
period. This is the first chapter of northern ag- 
gression. But let us come down to a later period. 
Missouri, which was formed out of the terri- 
tory, ceded by France in 1803, was slave territory 
when she asked admission as a State. Indef d, all 
the territory, ceded by France, was slave territory 
at the time of the cession. So far, therefore, as 
regarded the question of slavery, the North had 
no plausible ground to object to her admission. It 
was the institution of her people, when she was 
formed into a territory in 1812, and continued to 
be her institution, down to the time of her admis- 
sion, in 1820. But Missouri would add one more 
to the Democratic Slates ifadmitted,and strengthen 
still further the great national Democratic party. 
The Democrats v/ere still in power; but the Feder- 
alists of the North had determined that a northern 
man should succeed Mr. Monroe when his term 
of office expired. Again they raised the slavery 
cry, and again their eiforts were directed to estrange 
the North from the South. The same object, which 
the Hartford conventionists had in view, actuated 
the Federal leaders of the North in their agitation 
of the Missouri question. That object was the 
destruction of the national Democratic party, by 
the formation of a northern party, founded on sec- 
tional issues Many honest Democrats then, as 
now, influenced by their hostility to slavery, suf- 
fered themselves to be lured from the principles of 
their party by the insidious and hypocritical cry 
of free soil— a cry first raised in New England, 
and echoed back by the whole Federal party north 
of Mason and Dixon's line. Sir, the Missouri 
agitation was a fearful crisis in the history of this 
country. The Republic was shaken to its centre, 
and reeled under the blows which northern Feder- 
alists and northern fanatics were striking al its con ■ 
stitutional integrity. "This momentous'question, 
'(said Thomas JelTeison,) like a fire-bell in the 
' night, awakened and filled me with terror. I con- 
' sidered it at once the knell of the Union. It is 
' hushed, indeed, for the moment; but this is a 
' rcpiieve only, not a final sentence." How graphic 
is his representation of the danger to which the 
country was then exposed, and how prophetic 
were the fears, which he then expressed, that the 
settlement of the Missouri question was only a 
" reprieve, not a fin-il sentence !" I suppose north- 
ern gentlemen can see no aggression on the rights 
of the South in this question. In my opinion, it 
was aggression of the boldest and most dangerous 
character. Sir, 1 have said that the Missouri agi- 
tation had its origin with the Federal party, and 
that its object was the destruction of the Democratic 
party. 1 have not made this charge heedlessly, or 
without ample authority to sustain it. I make it 
on the authority of Thomas Jefferson himself, 
who wrote, that 

" On llie oclipse of federalism witli us, although not its 
extinction, its leaders got up l/ic Missouri (juestion, tinder the 
false front of lessening the measure of shivery, but with tlie 
real view of producins, <t :,'C0^npARai (Iaisi07io/;)ar//ej, uAuA 
mii;ht insure them the next President. The people of the 
North went blindfold into the snare, followed their leaders 
for a while with a zeal truly moral and laudalile, until they 
became sensible that they had been used merely as tools for 
electioneering purposes; and that trick of hypocrisy then fell 
as quickly as it had been got up." 

Let the Democrats of the North now take heed 



ii 



of the counsels of Jefferson. Let them not fall 
blindfold into the snare which the Federalists or 
Whigs of the North have again set for them; but 
relying on the integrity of their principles, and 
standing ficm by the Constitution of their country, 
let them be, what they have ever been, the conser- 
vators of Republicanism, and the defenders of the 
Union. 

But, Mr. Chairman, let us come down to a still 
later period. The North had been for a long time 
insidiously undermining the Constitution. Powers 
not granted by the States had been assumed by the 
General Government; and other powers, which 
were granted, had been .shamefully abused by the 
legislation of the country. The illustrious patriot, 
Andrew Jackson, was, however, elected President; 
and down went, one after the other, every prop of 
federalism. The Bank of the United States fell 
to the ground, the internal-improvement system 
was knocked in the head, and last, though not 
least, the system of granting patents of monopoly 
to the eastern manufacturers and federalists in the 
form of high protective tariffs, was grievously 
wounded and in the last throes of dissolution. 
Nothing was left but the slavery question, the old 
sectional issue; and from 3835 to this moment it 
has been pressed by the North upon this House 
and the country, with a vigor and determination 
never before exhibited. Session after session innu- 
merable petitions were sent up to this House, 
signed by the abolition men, and women, and 
children of the North, asking Congress to do that 
which the Constitution gave them no power to do. 
The "domestic tranquillity" of the South, which 
was one of the objects of the Union, was assailed 
in its most tender point, not merely by petitions to 
Congress, but by incendiary publications, dissemi- 
nated through the southern States, inciting the 
slave to insurrection and to massacre. The history 
of that period is fresh in the recollection of us all. 
A more cruel, shameless, and merciless assault 
upon the peace, safety, and domestic tranquillity of 
the South could not have been made, than was 
then made by the abolitionists of the North ; and 
still northern gentlemen on the opposite side of 
this Chamber allege, that there has been no aggres- 
sion on the South. Why, sir, what constitutes ag- 
gression .' Was it no aggression to assail the 
domestic institutions of a sovereign State of this 
Confederacy? Was it no aggression to incite a 
servile insurrection, to sUr up the slave to murder 
his owner, to fire his dwelling, to deluge the south- 
ern country with the blood of our southern breth- 
ren, and to desolate the hearth-stone of every 
southern family in the Union? Sir, if this be not 
aggression, then I do not knov/ what constitutes 
aggression. Restrained by no principle, moral 
or religious, by no feelings of humanity for their 
fellow man, and by no mercy for their intended 
victims, these abolitionists pressed forward to con- 
summate their wicked designs, with the torch of 
the incendiary in one hand and the black flag of 
negro emancipation in the other. And, sir, in the 
very front rank of that fanatic throng, stood 
Hypocrisy 

* * * * ^yith holy leer, 

Soft smiling and demurely looking down, 

But hid the dagger underneath the gown. 

Mr. Chairman, was all this no aggression ? Sir, 
if the Democratic party had not taken a bold, but 
perhaps doubtful, constitutional ground, it would 



have been something more than aggression — it 
would have been cold-blooded massacre. The 
South would have been lighted up with the con- 
flagration of her cities and towns, and the air 
wm,ild have resounded with the dying shrieks of 
her helpless women and children; blood v;ou]d 
have tlowed in torrents, and the war of extermina- 
tion would have been carried on, until half of the 
States of this Confederacy had been desolated, if 
not entirely depopulated. But the Democratic 
party saved the country from so direful a calam- 
ity. The peril to the South was imminent, and 
required prompt and decided action. A bill was 
passed empowering postmasters in the southern 
States to open the mail-bags, and take out the 
incendiary publications, which the Abolitionists 
were secretly circulating throughout the southern 
country. It was only by these means that a ser- 
vile insurrection was prevented, and the domestic 
tranquillity of the South in some measure se- 
cured. But although this bill put a stop to the 
circulation in the South of incendiary publica- 
tions by the Abolitionists, it did not restrain the 
North from pressing on Congress petitions for the 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia 
and the territories. Unabashed by the rebuke, 
which Congress had just given them, and utterly 
regardless of the welfare of their country, this 
northern party redoubled their exertions, backed 
by the great body of the Whigs in all the northern 
States. Again the country was convulsed by the 
agitation of the slavery question, and again the 
Democratic party came to the rescue. It was in 
1838, in consequence of this northern agitation, 
that the celebrated resolutions of Mr. Atherton 
were introduced. These resolutions were sup- 
ported by the great body of the Democratic party 
of the North, but opposed, I believe, unanimously 
by the Whig and Abolition parties of the same 
section. They were supported by all the Demo- 
cratic Representatives from Ptnnsylvaiiia, and by 
both the Democratic Senators from that State. 
I beg, sir, to call the attention of the committee 
to those resolutions, as containing the true Demo- 
cratic doctriiie on the subject of slavery. They 
are as follow: 

1. Rcsohed, Tliat this Government is a Goveoiiiient ol 
limited powers, and that by the Coniititution of the United 
States Congress has no jurisdiction whatever over tlie sub- 
ject of slavery in the several States of this Confederacy. 

2. Resolved, That petitions for the abolition of slavery 
in the District of Columbia, and Me territories of the United 
Slates, and against the removal of slaves from one State to 
another, are a part of a plan of operations set on foot to 
affect the institution of slavery in the several Statj^s, and 
thus indirectly destroy that institution within their limits. 

3. Resolved, That Conaress has no right to do tKat indi- 
rectly which it cannot do directly; and that the agitation of 
the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, or the 
territories, as a means and with a view of disturbing or 
overthrowing that institution in the several States, is against 
the true spirit and meaning of the Constitution, an infringe- 
ment of the rights of the States affected, and a breach'of 
the public faitli upon wliich they entered into the Confeder- 
ation. 

4. Resolved, That the Constitution rests on the broad 
principles of eiiuality among the memUers of this Confeder- 
acy, and that Congress, in the exercise of its acknowledged 
powers, has no right to discriminate between the institutions 
of one of the States and another, with a view of abolishing 
the one and promoting the other. 

This, sir, was the national platform, then laid 
down by the Democratic party in Congress; and 
it is the only platform on which the union of these 
States can securely rest, or on which the Demo- 



12 



cratic party can stand. These resolutions repu- 
diate the VVilmot proviso in almost direct terms. 
The 4th resolution declares, that the Constitution 
" reslB on the broad principles of equality among the 
members of this Confederacy," and that Congress 
has no right to discriminate between the institutions 
of the different States. Here is the doctrine of 
non-intervention laid down by tlia Democratic 
party more than twelve years ago. It was sound 
doctrine tlien, and it is equally sound doctrine now; 
and I hope that every Democrat here, and every 
.Democratic constituency throughout the land, will 
reassert the princijiles contained in the resolution; 
which I have just read. But, sir, we have even 
etiU higher authority for this doctrine of non-inter- 
fereiice. The National Democratic Conventions, 
composed of delegates from every section of the 
Union, in 1840, '44, and '48, solemnly resolved, 
that Congress has no power under the Constitu- 
tion to interfere with this domestic institution of 
the States, and that all efforts made to induce Con- 
gress to interfere with questions of slavery, " or 
to take incipient steps in relation Hurt to,'' are calcu 



iateJ io onduii-jtt iho sstciuili! , add 



:-y of 



the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by 
any friend to our political institutions. Such has 
been the unbroken«cour.se of the pemocrdtic party 
for a long series of years, in regard to this ques- 
tion of slavery. Now is the time to hold fast to 
these principles, because now is the time that their 
maintenance can alone restore peace and quiet to 
our distracted country. 

But, sir, before I conclude, I must refer to one 
other act of aggression by the North upon the 
South : I mean the refusal to deliver fugitive 
slaves. This, Mr. Chairman, has been an aggres- 
sion, made in open violation of the plainest consti- 
tutional obligations, that could be entered into by 
any people — and made too without the semblance 
of an excuse or justification. Sir, it is absurd to 
call any of the stipulations of the Constitution, 
compromises; but by whatever term they may be 
designated, they are binding covenants, which the 
States are bound to execute in good faith, and in 
letter and in spirit. How have the fre.'; States 
fulfilled their covenant to deliver the fugitive slave 
to the owner? "Why sir, that clause of the Con- 
stitution has become a dead letter. Bands of 
abolitionists are organized in the North i.ot only 
to aid in the escape of the sUives, but to steal them 
from their owners. I have the authority of an 
abolitionist of my own district for the truth of this 
statement. The refusal to execute this cosisiitu- 
tional duty has not been confined to "individual 
citizens of the North; but wc have had the Legis- 
latures of nearly ail the northern States endeavor- 
ing by stringent provi-^ions to prevent the delivery 
of the slave to his owner. I am glad, liowever, 
to say, that the Democrats of my own State have 
just succeeded in passing through the House of 
Representatives, v.ith the aid of but two Whig 
votes, a bill repealing the obtioxious and unconsti- 
tutional law of 1847, and 1 trust that the Demo- 



crats in other northern States will follow our 
example. The people of my own county, I am 
certain, wilt sustain me in the adoption of any 
law, which will relieve them of your fugitive 
slaves. We have free negroes enough to support, 
without having your slaves brought among us to 
interfere with the labor of the white man, to fill 
our jails and alms-houses, and to increase the taxes 
of the industrious portion of the community. But, 
sir, v/hile such is the feeling of my constituent?, 
they will require me to take good care, that in any 
bill, which Congress may adopt for the return of the 
slave, the rights uf the colored man are sufficienlly 
protected against injury and oppression. 

Such has been the course of the North against 
the South — not merely one act of aggression, but 
a series of acts beginning at the very birth of the 
Government, and running down to the present 
time. What more could have been done by the 
North to disturb " the domestic tranquillity" of 
the South, I am at a loss to know. It has been 
aggression not merely on the property and the 
domestic institutions of her people^ but on the 
constiiuiioiiui iiiiegrii.,, uf the Uiiio.? '.iself. By 
expressing these views in the face of the excite- 
ment, which pervades every northern constituency, 
I am aware of the personal sacrifice that I may 
make; but 1 have felt that it was time, even for 
an individual so humble as myself, to make £omc 
offering on the altar of his country. Let others go 
and do likewise, and peace, and love, and happi- 
ness will reign throughout the breadth and the 
length of our common country. I place my whole 
reliance, in this emergency, in the Democratic 
party of the North. When has our country ever 
called upon that party to come to her rescue, that 
it ha5 not been by her sidcj guarding and protect- 
ing her from the foreign and the domestic foe? 
Sir, that party has always recognized the inviola- 
bility of the Con.stitulion and the sovereigntjr of 
the States. With the Constitution for its guide, 
and the glory and honor of our beloved country 
forits only objects, it has always been found stand- 
ing by the Union, whether in its hour of peril or 
of safety. Sir, in this hour of peril, the most im- 
minent that has ever occured, let that party be 
rtgain found by the side of the country, in defence 
of the Constitution and the integrity of the Union. 
Let us stand, as our fathers stood, by the consti- 
tutional Union, which came from their hands — by 
that Union, which knows no North, no South, no 
East, and no West, l)ut which guaranties to every 
section equal rights tmd equal privileges — by that 
Union, formed, as it v,-as, in mutual love, which 
gave to the North no power to opi^raas the South, 
and to tiic South no power lo inflict wronga upon 
the North — by that Union, which has mnde us a 
great, prosperous, and free people, and which, if 
it continue, will liberate the world from bondagf;, 
and shed the light of liberty, religion, and civiliza- 
tion, into the darkest corners of the er.rth. In a 
word, sir, let there be a union of the Democracy 
for the sake of the Union. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



illi llliilli Hill III 



017 137 809 6 ^^ 



